The Anabaptist perception towards lawsuits!

[steve-in-kville]

No way to make this a poll as there are too many variables, and I am guessing by page two we're gonna be sidetracked anyway.... so, two part essay:

1- Does your church take a stand on using the court of law to sue someone, for any reason?

2- Provided you could, would you?

All options open, be it a personal suit, business related, landlord/tenant, etc. All is open game.

[Josh]

No way to make this a poll as there are too many variables, and I am guessing by page two we're gonna be sidetracked anyway.... so, two part essay:

1- Does your church take a stand on using the court of law to sue someone, for any reason?

Yes, it’s to be avoided. Insurance with subrogation clauses is to be avoided as much as possible; mutual aid exists to fill in that gap. Filing for a divorce is to be avoided but sometimes is necessary (eg in a community property state like California, a spouse who has left the church and their partner keeps running up big tax debts and not paying them).

2- Provided you could, would you?

No.

All options open, be it a personal suit, business related, landlord/tenant, etc. All is open game.

It is a gray area if hiring a lawyer to send a letter is ok. I’m personally ok with it.

[MaxPC]

No way to make this a poll as there are too many variables, and I am guessing by page two we're gonna be sidetracked anyway.... so, two part essay:

1- Does your church take a stand on using the court of law to sue someone, for any reason?

2- Provided you could, would you?

All options open, be it a personal suit, business related, landlord/tenant, etc. All is open game.

Quite the life of a thread on MN.

1. No
2. It depends upon the situation. We only use barristers when there is a need for advocacy in order to protect us. Solicitors do most of the work when trusts, wills, powers of attorney, and real estate transactions are on the table. Both situations are not a frequent occurrence.

[RZehr]

No way to make this a poll as there are too many variables, and I am guessing by page two we're gonna be sidetracked anyway.... so, two part essay:

1- Does your church take a stand on using the court of law to sue someone, for any reason?

2- Provided you could, would you?

All options open, be it a personal suit, business related, landlord/tenant, etc. All is open game.

1. Yes. Lawsuits are to be avoided.
2. Not individuals. Corporations and the government, there possibly would be a scenario that I would consider it to be a different thing.

For example, we had a water rights matter here in Oregon a few months ago. A rancher wanted to move the inlet or outlet (I don't remember the details) of a canal or creek that connected to his pond. However the State water board rejected the application because they did not believe that they actually had the authority to grant it. Now, keep in mind that the State wanted this inlet/outlet change to happen. The environmental groups supported this change too. The landowner wanted to make the change.
There was no one who was fighting to keep this from happening. The only problem was that the State interpreted the law one way, and they needed the rancher to sue them in order for a judge to hear the case and make a ruling in the ranchers favor. Only then would the State grant the permit, and the project could proceed forward.

The rancher did file suit, the State gave it's reasons in court, and the judge ruled that the State did have the authority to grant that specific permit. So all parties were happy, and the project is moving forward.

MITCHELL, Ore. — The irony of the legal dispute over upgrades to the Painted Hills Reservoir in Central Oregon is that everyone agrees the project helps the environment.

Oregon’s water regulators have contributed money toward raising the dam and storing more water for fish, even though they’re now fighting the project’s owner in court.
The problem isn’t the reservoir’s expansion but the legal mechanism needed to implement a critical aspect of the project, which observers say has far-reaching implications for Oregon water law.

Apart from upgrading the dam, owner Bridge Creek Ranch needs to change the point of diversion for the reservoir’s water supply. That requires a transfer of storage water rights that Oregon regulators have refused to approve.
https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors ... 77958.html

The Oregon Court of Appeals has determined state regulators are authorized to transfer water storage rights under certain circumstances, effectively overturning a government policy established five years ago.

The appellate court has affirmed that the Oregon Water Resources Department must process an application to move a reservoir’s point of diversion near Mitchell, Ore. The ruling means OWRD must again consider similar applications from other irrigators as well.
https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors ... 5f7ca.html

[Verity]

Yes, our church forbids any type of lawsuits.

Yet, I find it ironic that they are quite willing to engage lawyers to fight for them if their reputation or the "good name" of the church is at stake. Is not God able to fight for them?

Would I, if I could? Only if it were a matter of bringing real wrongs to light. Many individuals outside of the church have said that conservative Mennonite church's response and policy on child and domestic abuse will not change until it is taken to court and the church is made to pay publicly, such as happened with the Catholic church. Having relatives in the Catholic church, it does appear that the scandal did bring about much needed alterations. What is the perspective on this subject of Catholics on MN?

But having spent time in the courtroom representing others, it is ugly. It is a battleground with bloodshed. No one really wins.

[Ken]

No way to make this a poll as there are too many variables, and I am guessing by page two we're gonna be sidetracked anyway.... so, two part essay:

1- Does your church take a stand on using the court of law to sue someone, for any reason?

2- Provided you could, would you?

All options open, be it a personal suit, business related, landlord/tenant, etc. All is open game.

1. Yes. Lawsuits are to be avoided.
2. Not individuals. Corporations and the government, there possibly would be a scenario that I would consider it to be a different thing.

For example, we had a water rights matter here in Oregon a few months ago. A rancher wanted to move the inlet or outlet (I don't remember the details) of a canal or creek that connected to his pond. However the State water board rejected the application because they did not believe that they actually had the authority to grant it. Now, keep in mind that the State wanted this inlet/outlet change to happen. The environmental groups supported this change too. The landowner wanted to make the change.
There was no one who was fighting to keep this from happening. The only problem was that the State interpreted the law one way, and they needed the rancher to sue them in order for a judge to hear the case and make a ruling in the ranchers favor. Only then would the State grant the permit, and the project could proceed forward.

The rancher did file suit, the State gave it's reasons in court, and the judge ruled that the State did have the authority to grant that specific permit. So all parties were happy, and the project is moving forward.

MITCHELL, Ore. — The irony of the legal dispute over upgrades to the Painted Hills Reservoir in Central Oregon is that everyone agrees the project helps the environment.

Oregon’s water regulators have contributed money toward raising the dam and storing more water for fish, even though they’re now fighting the project’s owner in court.
The problem isn’t the reservoir’s expansion but the legal mechanism needed to implement a critical aspect of the project, which observers say has far-reaching implications for Oregon water law.

Apart from upgrading the dam, owner Bridge Creek Ranch needs to change the point of diversion for the reservoir’s water supply. That requires a transfer of storage water rights that Oregon regulators have refused to approve.
https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors ... 77958.html

The Oregon Court of Appeals has determined state regulators are authorized to transfer water storage rights under certain circumstances, effectively overturning a government policy established five years ago.

The appellate court has affirmed that the Oregon Water Resources Department must process an application to move a reservoir’s point of diversion near Mitchell, Ore. The ruling means OWRD must again consider similar applications from other irrigators as well.
https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors ... 5f7ca.html

There are also some similar instances where lawsuits might be necessary for insurance companies to actually pay up on a policy. And so everyone involved in the situation might actually agree but might have to go through the process of the lawsuit in order to make that happen. Of course that also depends on one having insurance and some of the same groups that oppose lawsuits also oppose insurance.

[RZehr]

I think I would draw a line between fighting over money, and asking a judge to decide what a law actually means.

We are told to give to him that asks, and to suffer joyfully the spoiling of our goods. So I don’t think that suing for money really follows the spirit of Christ. In those situations I think it is better to agree with thine adversary quickly, and return good for evil.

Suing in order for the court to issue a ruling about laws, is simply the mechanism we have by which to obtain clarity on what the law is, in order to follow the law better.

[Ken]

I think I would draw a line between fighting over money, and asking a judge to decide what a law actually means.

We are told to give to him that asks, and to suffer joyfully the spoiling of our goods. So I don’t think that suing for money really follows the spirit of Christ. In those situations I think it is better to agree with thine adversary quickly, and return good for evil.

Suing in order for the court to issue a ruling about laws, is simply the mechanism we have by which to obtain clarity on what the law is, in order to follow the law better.

What I'm talking about is something like the following.

Say you have a small business and someone slips and falls and is injured on your property and undergoes a $100,000 hospital bill. You have a $1 million umbrella policy to cover that sort of thing. But maybe the insurance company refuses to pay for whatever specious reason. Your customer cannot afford the $100,000 bill and neither can you. So perhaps it is in both of your interest to cooperate in a lawsuit intended to make your insurance company pay up.

That is just a random example off the top of my head so don't quibble with the details. But that is the sort of hypothetical thing I'm talking about when sometimes it is in everyone's interest just to let a lawsuit proceed in order to get some corporation to do its duty. What is the alternative? Mortgage your business to avoid a lawsuit to make your insurance company pay?

[ken_sylvania]

We are told to give to him that asks, and to suffer joyfully the spoiling of our goods. So I don’t think that suing for money really follows the spirit of Christ. In those situations I think it is better to agree with thine adversary quickly, and return good for evil.

How does the principle of suffering joyfully the spoiling of our goods, and agreeing with our adversaries quickly, apply in situations where a person makes false claims against us and demands payment?

I'm thinking of a situation that occurred within the last few years where a couple of individuals claimed physical abuse and that they had been forced to work without pay. Assume for a moment that the accusations are 100% false - completely made up.

If the organization defends themselves, they are accused of lawyering up to protect their reputation and fighting to keep their secrets from being exposed.
If the organization retains counsel and allows the process to play out through the discovery phase, and then settles, they are accused of settling because "they know they are wrong and they would lose at trial"
If the organization immediately offers to negotiate and settle in order to avoid a lawsuit being filed against them, they are immediately accused of trying to sweep things under the rug and protect themselves and their secrets.
If they disclose everything they possibly can, people will pick and chose from the information released to paint the organization as liars and monsters.
If they disclose little or nothing, people will accuse them of secrecy and cult-like behavior.

So, how can an organization in such a situation be effective and build God's kingdom by following the command to "agree with their adversary quickly"? It's certainly the Bible way - but what is the most effective way to implement the instruction?

[ken_sylvania]

I think I would draw a line between fighting over money, and asking a judge to decide what a law actually means.

We are told to give to him that asks, and to suffer joyfully the spoiling of our goods. So I don’t think that suing for money really follows the spirit of Christ. In those situations I think it is better to agree with thine adversary quickly, and return good for evil.

Suing in order for the court to issue a ruling about laws, is simply the mechanism we have by which to obtain clarity on what the law is, in order to follow the law better.

What I'm talking about is something like the following.

Say you have a business and someone slips and falls and is injured on your property and undergoes a $100,000 hospital bill. You have a $1 million umbrella policy to cover that sort of thing. But maybe the insurance company refuses to pay for whatever specious reason. Your customer cannot afford the $100,000 bill and neither can you. So perhaps it is in both of your interest to cooperate in a lawsuit intended to make your insurance company pay up.

That is just a random example off the top of my head so don't quibble with the details. But that is the sort of hypothetical thing I'm talking about when sometimes it is in everyone's interest just to let a lawsuit proceed in order to get some corporation to do its duty. What is the alternative? Mortgage your business to avoid a lawsuit to make your insurance company pay?

The alternative you mentioned seems more in line with Jesus' teachings about going the extra mile, giving ones coat and cloak, etc.